- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Indiabulls Financial Services Ltd Petitioner v. M/S Jubilee Plots And Housing Private Ltd & Ors S
Factual and Procedural Background
These petitions under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 seek interim measures similar to those already granted to the petitioner by the arbitral tribunal under Section 17 of the Act. The arbitral tribunal, by its order dated 31st July 2009 in arbitration case OMP No. 453/2009, restrained the respondents from selling, alienating, parting with possession of, or creating third party interests in certain immovable properties situated in Kancheepuram District, Chennai. In a related arbitration case (OMP No. 452/2009), the tribunal held that since such restraint was already in place, no separate injunction was necessary. The petitioner approached this court seeking similar orders under Section 9, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Md, Army Welfare Housing Organisation v. Sumangal Services (P) Ltd. (2004 (9) SCC 619), which held that orders under Section 17 are unenforceable, and thus requested the court to pass such orders.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether interim measures granted by the arbitral tribunal under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 are enforceable by the courts.
- Whether a party who has obtained interim relief under Section 17 from the arbitral tribunal can subsequently seek similar relief from the court under Section 9 of the Act.
- The question of territorial jurisdiction of the court to grant relief concerning properties situated outside its territorial jurisdiction.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Md, Army Welfare Housing Organisation v. Sumangal Services (P) Ltd., 2004 (9) SCC 619 | Orders under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act are unenforceable by courts. | The petitioner relied on this judgment to contend that since Section 17 orders are unenforceable, the court should grant the same interim relief under Section 9. |
| Shri Krishan v. Anand OMP 597/2008 | Orders of the arbitral tribunal under Section 17 are enforceable under Section 27(5) of the Act; a party cannot seek the same relief from the court under Section 9 after electing to apply under Section 17. | The court followed this precedent to hold that since Section 17 orders are enforceable, the petitions under Section 9 were not maintainable. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court noted that the arbitral tribunal had already granted interim relief under Section 17 of the Act, restraining the respondents regarding the immovable properties in question. The petitioner’s reliance on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Md, Army Welfare Housing Organisation v. Sumangal Services (P) Ltd., which held that Section 17 orders are unenforceable, was addressed by the court’s recent ruling in Shri Krishan v. Anand, which clarified that Section 17 orders are enforceable under Section 27(5). Consequently, the court reasoned that since the petitioner had already obtained enforceable interim relief from the arbitral tribunal, it was not entitled to seek the same relief again under Section 9. The court also briefly addressed the territorial jurisdiction issue, observing that although the petitioner claimed jurisdiction based on part of the cause of action arising within the court’s territory and an alleged agreement on exclusive jurisdiction, no supporting documents were filed, and the court did not express any view on that aspect.
Holding and Implications
The court disposed of the petitions on the basis that the interim orders obtained by the petitioner from the arbitral tribunal under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 are enforceable and therefore the petitions under Section 9 seeking similar relief were not maintainable. The decision directly affects the parties by denying the petitioner’s request for duplicative interim orders from the court. No new legal precedent was established beyond reaffirming the enforceability of Section 17 orders as per the court’s earlier ruling in Shri Krishan v. Anand.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. Both these petitions under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 seek interim measures as already granted to the petitioner by the arbitral tribunal, on applications of the petitioner under Section 17 of the Act. The arbitral tribunal vide order dated 31st July, 2009 in arbitration case which is the subject matter of OMP.No 453/2009 restrained the respondents from selling, alienating, parting with possession of or creating third party interest in the immovable properties situated in Kancheepuram District, Chennai. On similar relief being claimed from the arbitral tribunal in the other arbitration case, which is the subject matter of OMP.No 452/2009, the arbitral tribunal vide order dated 31 July, 2009 held that since the respondents had already been restrained as aforesaid and which restraint would cover the claims subject matter of this arbitration case also, no separate order of injunction was required to be issued.
2. The petitioner has preferred these petitions contending that since as per the judgment of the Supreme court in MD, Md, Army Welfare Housing Organisation v. Sumangal Services (P) Ltd.. 2004 (9) SCC 619, the orders under Section 17 of the Act are unenforceable, the same orders be passed by this court also in exercise of powers under Section 9 of the Act.
3. The petitions came up for admission before this court on 10th August, 2009. On that date the counsel for the petitioner was informed that this court had reserved order in another matter on the same legal issues.
4. Today vide orders passed in Shri Krishan v. Anand OMP 597/2008 it has been held that the orders of the arbitral tribunal under Section 17 of the Act are enforceable under Section 27(5) of the Act and that party which has elected to apply for the relief under Section 17 of the Act is thereafter not entitled to seek the same relief from the court under Section 9 of the Act. It is not deemed expedient to repeat the detailed reasoning in this order.
5. Suffice it is to state that since the orders already obtained by the petitioner from the arbitral tribunal under Section 17 of the Act are enforceable, these petitions are not maintainable.
6. Before parting with the cases it is also necessary to deal with the aspect of territorial jurisdiction since relief with respect to the properties outside the territorial jurisdiction of this court is claimed. The petitioner has in the petitions stated that this court has territorial jurisdiction, since a part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this court and further since the parties had agreed to the exclusive jurisdiction of this court. It is clarified that neither any documents in this regard are filed alongwith the petitions nor has this court expressed any view in this regard.
With the aforesaid observations, the petitions are disposed of.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE)
18 August, 2009 M
Alert